Ireland - a secular state?

ciaobellaciao1

"Secularism: A position that religious belief should not influence public and governmental decisions; The related political belief in the separation of church and state"

A Spanish friend of mine recently asked me if Ireland was a secular state and I was surprised to find out that in fact it is. Strange, as when growing up, I always found that there was quite a strong link between the Catholic Church and the State. And how secular can you call a country that won't allow abortion because of pressure from the Catholic Church?

I'd be pleased if some experts would enlighten me on this issue, perhaps there are some religious scholars on this forum.

How secular do you think Ireland is?

Does the Irish state really provide equal funding to all religions?

AtomicHorror

ciaobellaciao1 wrote: »

"Secularism: A position that religious belief should not influence public and governmental decisions; The related political belief in the separation of church and state"

A Spanish friend of mine recently asked me if Ireland was a secular state and I was surprised to find out that in fact it is. Strange, as when growing up, I always found that there was quite a strong link between the Catholic Church and the State. And how secular can you call a country that won't allow abortion because of pressure from the Catholic Church?

It's not quite as simple as all that. The Catholic Church has many adherents in Ireland. Which means many voters. Abortion has gone to referendum here before and has been voted down by the people. I don't agree with that decision, but it was a democratic decision. In a non secular state I don't think that kind of issue would ever make it to the polls.

Nodin

ciaobellaciao1 wrote: »

How secular do you think Ireland is?

Does the Irish state really provide equal funding to all religions?

I remember coming across this recently, which makes one wonder......

At least €745,000 has been paid by the State under the terms of the indemnity agreed with the 18 congregations as part of the 2002 deal. The indemnity ran until the end of 2005, while such indemnity was refused to Protestant homes where there were also allegations of abuse.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2009/0526/1224247405119.html

JimiTime

ciaobellaciao1 wrote: »

And how secular can you call a country that won't allow abortion because of pressure from the Catholic Church?

I thought that was a constitutional thing. Also, I was under the impression that the Irish people as a whole exercised their democratic right when they voted 'No' to abortion.

Biro

JimiTime wrote: »

I thought that was a constitutional thing. Also, I was under the impression that the Irish people as a whole exercised their democratic right when they voted 'No' to abortion.

Yes, but it's easier to blame the church.

Rev Hellfire

You get the impression that some people believe a secular state is one which will take the opposite stance to the position the major religions espouse.

Bduffman

ciaobellaciao1 wrote: »

How secular do you think Ireland is?

Officially secular & actually secular are two very different things.

PDN

ciaobellaciao1 wrote: »

"Secularism: A position that religious belief should not influence public and governmental decisions; The related political belief in the separation of church and state"

A Spanish friend of mine recently asked me if Ireland was a secular state and I was surprised to find out that in fact it is. Strange, as when growing up, I always found that there was quite a strong link between the Catholic Church and the State. And how secular can you call a country that won't allow abortion because of pressure from the Catholic Church?

I'd be pleased if some experts would enlighten me on this issue, perhaps there are some religious scholars on this forum.

How secular do you think Ireland is?

Does the Irish state really provide equal funding to all religions?

I would define a secular state as a nation where religious institutions have the same rights and privileges as any other pressure group, social club or sports association - no more no less.

Ireland fails at being a secular state when it comes to issues like education, health care and prisons - where preferential treatment is given to Roman Catholicism.

However, the majority of people voting in line with their religious convictions, for example in regard to abortion, is IMHO perfectly compatible with a secular State. the Church mobilising people to vote in a particular way is no different from the GAA, the Vegetarian Society, or Amnesty International lobbying for a particular outcome to a referendum.

ScumLord

I don't consider myself Catholic anymore but I still wouldn't agree with easy access to abortions. I think there should be some allowances for abortions in extreme cases but I'd be of the opinion that you shouldn't do the crime if your not prepared to do the time. So to speak. Getting pregnant is natures domain as far as I'm concerned and you can't fight nature.

I think Ireland is secular and probably has been a bit more secular than people thought. That play Juno and the peacock where they always bowed down to the priest when he was around and cursed him when his back was turned struck true about the Irish mentality to religion I just didn't know it would have gone back that far.

Over all I think Irish people that call them selfs catholic are only catholic in name and if they where told to practice Catholicism properly or leave the church they'd have no option but to leave.

Fanny Cradock

Our Constitution opens with the following lines:

In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred,
We, the people of Éire, Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial...

I don't beieve that Ireland is a secular state. Yet, much like PDN, I don't object to it becoming such, but only as long as it has the proviso that "secularism" doesn't become a way of saying that religion should suddenly disappear into the private corners of people's lives.

Coriolanus

ciaobellaciao1 wrote: »

How secular do you think Ireland is?

Not secular enough generally. The constitution opens as FC quoted above, many public servants are still required to swear a christian oath to serve in office and so forth.

philologos

ciaobellaciao1 wrote: »

A Spanish friend of mine recently asked me if Ireland was a secular state and I was surprised to find out that in fact it is. Strange, as when growing up, I always found that there was quite a strong link between the Catholic Church and the State. And how secular can you call a country that won't allow abortion because of pressure from the Catholic Church?

I believe abortion even in a non-religious context is wrong. Killing another human for sake of convenience doesn't go down well with me. I think that the State won't allow abortion because it recognises the rights of the unborn. Not due to pressure from the Catholic Church. I personally don't mind what view the Pope has on it as I'm a non-Catholic.

ciaobellaciao1 wrote: »

How secular do you think Ireland is?

How secular should it be? I personally think you cannot separate religion from the people. I do think that the Church should be separate from the State, and that the State should be separate from the Church. Apart from that though, I think there is absolutely no problem with people being public about their faith, or having their faith being an influencing factor in how they vote amongst other things.

ciaobellaciao1 wrote: »

Does the Irish state really provide equal funding to all religions?

The Irish State doesn't fund. What it does is allow churches to exist as non-profit organisations which means that they aren't taxed. The same applies for Muslims, Jews and all other recognised religions.

Coriolanus

Jakkass wrote: »

The Irish State doesn't fund. What it does is allow churches to exist as non-profit organisations which means that they aren't taxed. The same applies for Muslims, Jews and all other recognised religions.

We could play semantics all night with whether or not tax-free status yields a capital gain or not, but even discounting that the Irish state can and does provide fund for religious institutions and charities with explicitly religious goals and ethos' (ethii?).

ciaobellaciao1

Bduffman wrote: »

Officially secular & actually secular are two very different things.

Completely agree. The concept of secularism or 'laicité' to be more precise originally meant separation of church and state. Things have changed since the French Engligtenment however, with the term secular now having evolved to mean respecting all religions equally.

To have a truly secular state, we would have to ban all religious relics in state schools and ban the wearing of religious symbols in state institutions. (I wonder how many politicians wear a cross of some kind?)

Interesting link here:
http://www.secularism.org.uk/whatissecularism.html

ciaobellaciao1

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Our Constitution opens with the following lines:



I don't beieve that Ireland is a secular state. Yet, much like PDN, I don't object to it becoming such, but only as long as it has the proviso that "secularism" doesn't become a way of saying that religion should suddenly disappear into the private corners of people's lives.

Indeed, a state that makes references to a Supreme Being cannot be secular at all.

garrincha62

ciaobellaciao1 wrote: »

Indeed, a state that makes references to a Supreme Being cannot be secular at all.

+1

Secular how? Secular like a clown?

IMHO I cannot see Ireland being secular until the generations that grew up with close association to the Catholic Church (schools, being made go to mass, letting the priest in when he visited, paying dues out of fear) die out. Maybe in 40 years or so.

ciaobellaciao1

Jakkass wrote: »

The Irish State doesn't fund. What it does is allow churches to exist as non-profit organisations which means that they aren't taxed. The same applies for Muslims, Jews and all other recognised religions.

Interested in knowing how the following are funded:

* Irish churches (protestant, anglican and catholic)

* mosques

* convent schools

Are you telling me that the state doesn't offer a penny to any of the above?

philologos

I find that when atheists discuss separation of church and state they seem to think that it means throwing religion out of society in general or keeping religion private. I stumbled upon a very interesting article on the Guardian website from last month that sums up my opinion on the matter very well:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2009/may/18/religion-america-first-amendment

For decades, the assumption amongst intellectuals was of an inverse relationship between modernity and religious belief. A change of mind emerged in the 1990s, culminating 1999 when the leading sociologist of religion, Peter Berger, wrote, "The assumption that we live in a secularised world is false. The world is as furiously religious as it ever was." He coined a new word: "desecularisation". What he'd realised is that modernity, that cultural shift of which science is the most brilliant product, does not lead to religious decline. "What it does lead to, necessarily, is pluralism," he explained. That predicament is at once more fascinating and alarming, for every day people rub up against belief systems and lifestyles different from their own.

I personally don't think it is possible to have a truly "secular state". A state can only be secular in as far as it can stop direct involvement from churches in Government. However it cannot separate religion from people, or from politicians. This is precisely the reason why a government cannot be completely secular. Society cannot be completely secular either, rather it can be plural. A place where many different religions and practices meet.

Carrying on:

What America's modernity has not tried to do is force religion into the private sphere, a tendency that has characterised European reactions to belief. At the same time, though, it has ensured that there is at least a theoretical distance between religion and the exercise of political power. That balance is the genius of the American solution, which Micklethwait and Wooldridge commend to a plural world.

I also agree that a free market of faith, rather than insisting that people must keep quiet about it is better than the European model. I'd actually encourage that Ireland go in the direction of an American model rather than a European model on faith and belief where faith and beliefs are free to be chosen and propogated.

For example, if secular forces succeed in continuing to drive church and state apart on this side of the Atlantic, that could actually be good for belief. Free of establishment shackles, religious commitment would turn a corner and start to grow again.

I agree totally here as well. The Church being separate from the State is good for the Church too.

Take a flick through the rest of the article, tell me what you think.

philologos

ciaobellaciao1 wrote: »

* Irish churches (protestant, anglican and catholic)

* mosques

The Churches are given a tax exemption. I.E they do not have to pay tax on donations. That is the benefit given to them by the Government.

ciaobellaciao1 wrote: »

* convent schools

Any school that teaches the school cirriculum is funded by the State. This school could be atheist, agnostic, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, as long as they teach the general cirriculum there will be funding allocated to them by the State. So in that case schools do get funding. They do not get funding just because of their faith, they get it because they apply for a license from the State and they are teaching what the State asks them to teach. This is no different from non-religious schools.

If they teach a different cirriculum. For example if the cirriculum in Saudi Arabia was used in schools for youngsters in Islamic schools, or if International Schools use a different cirriculum they will not receive state funding.

ciaobellaciao1 wrote: »

Are you telling me that the state doesn't offer a penny to any of the above?

They offer tax benefits to churches.

They offer funding to any school that teaches the cirriculum, both religious and non-religious. (I.E they aren't given money just because they are religious if atheists can get the same funding for a school they set up)

ciaobellaciao1

garrincha62 wrote: »

+1

Secular how? Secular like a clown?

IMHO I cannot see Ireland being secular until the generations that grew up with close association to the Catholic Church (schools, being made go to mass, letting the priest in when he visited, paying dues out of fear) die out. Maybe in 40 years or so.

What do you mean by 'secular like a clown'?

"I cannot see Ireland being secular ... maybe in 40 years or so." I said the same to my Spanish friend!

Bear in mind that European countries have experienced different histories. in France as the birthplace of secularism, the concept is well ingrained in French society, it's also pretty strong in Spain because of what the Spanish endured during the Franco regime. In Ireland, the fact that being a strong supporter of the Catholic church was synonymous with being a good republican for many years certainly didn't help matters!

philologos

You would have to clarify what you mean by "secular" before we get started on whether or not Ireland is secular I think. If secular means the majority of people being non-religious, I personally wouldn't like that. If secular means separation of church and state and that alone, I'm personally fine with that.

ciaobellaciao1

Jakkass wrote: »

The Churches are given a tax exemption. I.E they do not have to pay tax on donations. That is the benefit given to them by the Government.



Any school that teaches the school cirriculum is funded by the State. This school could be atheist, agnostic, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, as long as they teach the general cirriculum there will be funding allocated to them by the State. So in that case schools do get funding. They do not get funding just because of their faith, they get it because they apply for a license from the State and they are teaching what the State asks them to teach. This is no different from non-religious schools.

If they teach a different cirriculum. For example if the cirriculum in Saudi Arabia was used in schools for youngsters in Islamic schools, or if International Schools use a different cirriculum they will not receive state funding.



They offer tax benefits to churches.

They offer funding to any school that teaches the cirriculum, both religious and non-religious. (I.E they aren't given money just because they are religious if atheists can get the same funding for a school they set up)

Thanks for that, trying to become more familiar with the situation. So, the very fact that the government offers tax breaks to religious groups proves that Ireland is not a truly secular state if we are to go by the original meaning of 'secular' (ie. the definition from the Enlightenment and secularism as it is practised in France and Turkey- although I'm sure even there the government interferes in religious affairs to some degree too)

philologos

ciaobellaciao1 wrote: »

Thanks for that, trying to become more familiar with the situation. So, the very fact that the government offers tax breaks to religious groups proves that Ireland is not a truly secular state if we are to go by the original meaning of 'secular' (ie. the definition from the Enlightenment and secularism as it is practised in France and Turkey- although I'm sure even there the government interferes in religious affairs to some degree too)

Religions are not for profit. If they were they should be taxed IMO. However, I think the Government also funds secular groups. Not entirely sure, but if they don't they should to level the playing field. Personally, I regard the tax exemptions as fine as long as the market place is fair and even for all religious views.

ciaobellaciao1

Jakkass wrote: »

You would have to clarify what you mean by "secular" before we get started on whether or not Ireland is secular I think. If secular means the majority of people being non-religious, I personally wouldn't like that. If secular means separation of church and state and that alone, I'm personally fine with that.

There are many accepted defintions. See this page for a start:
http://www.google.be/search?hl=fr&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:fr:official&hs=cf7&defl=en&q=define:secularism&ei=11dDStmIAY-RjAew6N2iDw&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

Having studied this as part of a university course, the most accepted definition of secularism is the separation between Church and State. You can read my previous post here :

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bduffman
Officially secular & actually secular are two very different things.

Completely agree. The concept of secularism or 'laicité' to be more precise originally meant separation of church and state. Things have changed since the French Engligtenment however, with the term secular now having evolved to mean respecting all religions equally.

To have a truly secular state, we would have to ban all religious relics in state schools and ban the wearing of religious symbols in state institutions. (I wonder how many politicians wear a cross of some kind?)

philologos

Banning religious symbols isn't secularism. That's separating religion from individuals. That's the kind of nonsense that I would like to keep out of Ireland. Restricting or denying religious freedom is not secularism. I personally think the US model is better than the European model on religion.

ciaobellaciao1

Jakkass wrote: »

Religions are not for profit. If they were they should be taxed IMO. However, I think the Government also funds secular groups. Not entirely sure, but if they don't they should to level the playing field. Personally, I regard the tax exemptions as fine as long as the market place is fair and even for all religious views.

OK, but you're completely missing the point. You don't seem to have understood the original meaning of 'secular'. If a state were truly secular, it should not fund or provide tax breaks or interfere in any way in religious affairs.

ciaobellaciao1

Jakkass wrote: »

Banning religious symbols isn't secularism. That's separating religion from individuals. That's the kind of nonsense that I would like to keep out of Ireland. Restricting or denying religious freedom is not secularism. I personally think the US model is better than the European model on religion.

Banning religious symbols in STATE INSTITUTIONS is the very essence secularism. Have you ever read anything about Secularism?
History can teach us a lot!

philologos

ciaobellaciao1 wrote: »

OK, but you're completely missing the point. You don't seem to have understood the original meaning of 'secular'. If a state were truly secular, it should not fund or provide tax breaks or interfere in any way in religious affairs.

Let me argue the reverse:

You don't seem to have understood the original meaning of 'secular' (IMO this isn't the meaning of secular it's just your rambling). If a state were truly secular, it should not tax or interfere in any way in religious affairs. (Tax is a way of interference). Tax actually interferes with non-profit religion. Not taxing it is actually the best way the state and faith can keep separate.

ciaobellaciao1

Jakkass wrote: »

Let me argue the reverse:

You don't seem to have understood the original meaning of 'secular' (IMO this isn't the meaning of secular it's just your rambling). If a state were truly secular, it should not tax or interfere in any way in religious affairs. (Tax is a way of interference). Tax actually interferes with non-profit religion. Not taxing it is actually the best way the state and faith can keep separate.

Sorry, could you please rewrite, as your argument isn't clear!

philologos

ciaobellaciao1 wrote: »

Banning religious symbols in STATE INSTITUTIONS is the very essence secularism. Have you ever read anything about the Englightenment?

Yes, I've read both the good and the bad. I as an intelligent creature am able to discern for myself what was good and what was bad about it.

Good: Independence for churches, freedom of religion.
Bad: The Dechristianisation of France, violent rebellion against Catholicism killing priests.

Use some of your critical thinking skills and skepticism. Not everything that happened during the Enlightenment was rosy. Even though there was absolutely nothing about wearing a cross, or a headscarf discussed during the Enlightenment in relation to schools. If there was please cite.

Secularism is not allowing faiths to interfere with the State, and not allowing the State to interfere in faiths. It has nothing to do with what people wear or stopping people wearing religious symbols.
That's separating faith from the individual not from the State. It's repressive, and it denies freedom of religion. This isn't secularism.

ciaobellaciao1

Jakkass wrote: »

Yes, I've read both the good and the bad. I as an intelligent creature am able to discern for myself what was good and what was bad about it.

Good: Independence for churches, freedom of religion.
Bad: The Dechristianisation of France, violent rebellion against Catholicism killing priests.

Use some of your critical thinking skills and skepticism. Not everything that happened during the Enlightenment was rosy. Even though there was absolutely nothing about wearing a cross, or a headscarf discussed during the Enlightenment in relation to schools. If there was please cite.

Secularism is not allowing faiths to interfere with the State, and not allowing the State to interfere in faiths. It has nothing to do with what people wear or stopping people wearing religious symbols.
That's separating faith from the individual not from the State. It's repressive, and it denies freedom of religion. This isn't secularism.

Truly, you're going a bit off the point and still have difficulty in understanding the definition of 'secularism'!

Let's get the definition clear!! For the last time, secularism does not prone the separation of faith from the individual. It is only in state institutions where individuals would not be allowed to show religious appartenance. Of course, we cannot separate faith from the individual - it's an inherent part of our culture. Do you understand? :-)

Discussion over for today!

philologos

It isn't secularism to deny people the right to wear religious symbols. That isn't a problem in understanding. It's that people abuse what secularism was originally intended to do to deny people their rights. When people abuse secularism like that it is sickening IMO.

Secularism is meant to be about encouraging rights and freedom of choice concerning religion, rather than denying individuals their rights. That's why I think France and Turkey are totally wrong to impose restrictions like this.

As for tax: You say tax exemption is the State interfering with religion. I personally think that taxing non-profit religious organisations is the State interfering with religion, tax exemption is a way the State can separate itself from religion.

robindch

Jakkass wrote: »

It isn't secularism to deny people the right to wear religious symbols.

If people didn't demand special rights in connection with the symbols, then people can wear whatever they like.

Unfortunately, religious people certainly do demand special rights that are typically denied to other people -- like, IIRC, that example of the nurse who wanted to wear a christian religious symbol in violation of her hospital's policy on jewelry (which is a potent source of infection).

Jakkass wrote: »

When people abuse secularism like that it is sickening IMO.

<grin> in the case above, religious people wearing religious symbols is, quite literally, sickening. And it's good to see that the hospital required her to remove her symbols and put the health of the hospital's patients in front of her requirement to display her religious trinkets.

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally think that taxing non-profit religious organisations is the State interfering with religion, tax exemption is a way the State can separate itself from religion.

I can't follow your reasoning here at all.

Churches take in money and they spend money, mostly on themselves, same as the rest of us. Governments need money to provide social services for the good of all, and typically take a cut of every transaction that takes place in an economy to generate this cash.

Why exactly should they the churchs' not contribute to the society in which they operate, same as everybody else? And equally to the point, why is there no requirement to submit audited accounts?

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

If people didn't demand special rights in connection with the symbols, then people can wear whatever they like.

Unfortunately, religious people certainly do demand special rights that are typically denied to other people -- like, IIRC, that example of the nurse who wanted to wear a christian religious symbol in violation of her hospital's policy on jewelry (which is a potent source of infection).

If this was the case, i.e. Wedding rings, pocket watches etc could not be worn, then its only fair that the religious trinkets should also be removed. If however, it is 'No you can't wear that star of David as its a religious symbol', then its shenanigans.

<grin> in the case above, religious people wearing religious symbols is, quite literally, sickening. And it's good to see that the hospital required her to remove her symbols and put the health of the hospital's patients in front of her requirement to display her religious trinkets.I can't follow your reasoning here at all.

Is this Jackass' reasoning? You brought up a case where the jewlery is a health hazard, and have presumed Jackass takes the stand you alledge above. From what I know of Jackass through his postings, I would not alledge such a thing. I think it was disingenuous of you to.

Churches take in money and they spend money, mostly on themselves, same as the rest of us. Governments need money to provide social services for the good of all, and typically take a cut of every transaction that takes place in an economy to generate this cash.

Why exactly should they the churchs' not contribute to the society in which they operate, same as everybody else? And equally to the point, why is there no requirement to submit audited accounts?

I think any non-profit organisation should be scrutinised fairly. Be it Goal, Concern, a church etc. If it is shown, that they are honest in their charitable dealings, they should remain tax free.

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Why exactly should they the churchs' not contribute to the society in which they operate, same as everybody else? And equally to the point, why is there no requirement to submit audited accounts?

Taxes are paid on profits. If churches operates as non-profit organisations then why should they pay taxes? Churches are, in this respect, treated the same as educational bodies which, to me, seems entirely reasonable. Non-profit organisations, such as churches, the Humanist Association or the Vegetarian Society should be treated equally in an enlightened secular society. To single out churches, but to leave other non-profits untaxed would be a most unsecular form of discriminationatory taxation.

And where are you getting the idea that there is no requirement to submit audited accounts? Our church, as part of our charitable status, must submit audited accounts to the Revenue each year. Failure to do so means you lose your charitable status.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

Is this Jackass' reasoning?

I was trying to find out how he justifies his assertion that churches should be tax-free.

JimiTime wrote: »

I think any non-profit organisation should be scrutinised fairly. Be it Goal, Concern, a church etc.

We can agree on that

JimiTime wrote: »

If it is shown, that they are honest in their charitable dealings, they should remain tax free.

My point is that most of the cash that a church takes in is spent on itself. That's not a charity, that's a business and they should be treated as such.

If GOAL was spending 95% of its income on itself, rather than its support programs for the third world, it would be quite rightly stripped of its charitable status. But that doesn't happen to churches which claim to be charities, but spend money almost exclusively on themselves.

dvpower

Jakkass wrote: »

As for tax: You say tax exemption is the State interfering with religion. I personally think that taxing non-profit religious organisations is the State interfering with religion, tax exemption is a way the State can separate itself from religion.

I'm trying to run a not for profit family, but for some reason the Revenue won't make my income tax exempt.

getz

is the irish republic a secular state ?- a well documented report this year[2009] says yes.quote.the roman catholic church has been intimately enmeshd with every facet of life in the republic of ireland, control of education,health care and the welthfare system, i think just about answers this threads questions.

JimiTime

robindch wrote: »

But that doesn't happen to churches which claim to be charities, but spend money almost exclusively on themselves.

Could you expand as to what constitutes 'on themselves'?

JC 2K3

JimiTime wrote: »

I thought that was a constitutional thing. Also, I was under the impression that the Irish people as a whole exercised their democratic right when they voted 'No' to abortion.

When was there an abortion referendum?

As far as I know there never has been one...


Ireland is far from secular.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

Could you expand as to what constitutes 'on themselves'?

That is a very good point, Jimi. Does a school spend all its money 'on itself' by building classrooms, paying teachers etc.? Or is the school spending its money on its stated purpose of educating others?

What about the Ballincollig Senior Citizens Club (a registered charity)? Since it spends all its money on itself, then should it lose its charitable status?

Even better, what about the Humanist Association of Ireland (Registered Charity #16550)? I wonder how much of their money they give away to others.

dvpower

There are a number of things I'd like to see done in seperating Church and State in Ireland, that to me are more important then the tax status of Churches or the issue of religious clothing or symbols. I wonder if Christians would have objections or be broadly supportive?


Education: No school (that is funded by the state) should have a religious ethos. Religion may form part of the curriculum (teaching about it, not teaching of it / indoctrination).

Health: Hospitals shouldn't have a religious ethos. Any legal medical procedures or research should be free to be carried out without interference.

philologos

The two choices in my eyes are basically to encourage free enterprise of religion within society, or to suppress it. I don't think the latter can be passed as secularism in it's truest form though.

robindch

JimiTime wrote: »

Could you expand as to what constitutes 'on themselves'?

Well, on buildings, employees, travel, accommodation, food, not to mention child abuse settlements.

Declaring them "not-for-profit" is fine and good, but they're not charities if they're spending money on themselves.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Our church, as part of our charitable status, must submit audited accounts to the Revenue each year. Failure to do so means you lose your charitable status.

Good to hear.

And do you open your books for anybody to read, so that people can check out what their donations -- fairly sizable, if people are tithing around 10% of their income -- are being spent upon?

dvpower

Revenue have a number of criteria in determining if an organisation can register as a charity.

• 1 Trusts for the Relief of Poverty
• 2 Trusts for the Advancement of Education
• 3 Trusts for the Advancement of Religion
• 4 Trusts for other purposes beneficial to the community

Churches certainly qualify under point 3, and perhaps under (the more vague) point 4.

I wonder, would Christians object to removing the explicit support for religion in point 3?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

Well, on buildings, employees, travel, accommodation, food, not to mention child abuse settlements.

Declaring them "not-for-profit" is fine and good, but they're not charities if they're spending money on themselves.

So is the Humanist Association of Ireland a charity or not?

PDN

robindch wrote: »

And do you open your books for anybody to read, so that people can check out what their donations -- fairly sizable, if people are tithing around 10% of their income -- are being spent upon?

Since we are a non-profit limited company anyone who wishes can obtain and view our accounts. We also hold members' meetings where we give details of how every penny is spent.

philologos

dvpower wrote: »

Revenue have a number of criteria in determining if an organisation can register as a charity.

• 1 Trusts for the Relief of Poverty
• 2 Trusts for the Advancement of Education
• 3 Trusts for the Advancement of Religion
• 4 Trusts for other purposes beneficial to the community

Churches certainly qualify under point 3, and perhaps under (the more vague) point 4.

I wonder, would Christians object to removing the explicit support for religion in point 3?

You've yet to explain why it should be removed. If the State is to encourage the free enterprise of religion, taxation isn't such a good idea. If it wants to restrict it, sure it's a great idea if you want to go to that end of the spectrum.

PDN

I just checked the Revenue website. All bodies with charitable status must submit audited accounts each year to the Revenue Commissioners if their annual income exceeds 100,000 euro. No exemptions for churches.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

So is the Humanist Association of Ireland a charity or not?

I'd have thought it was fairly obvious it's a not-for-profit, working for "purposes beneficial to the community"?

PDN wrote: »

We also hold members' meetings where we give details of how every penny is spent.

Thoroughly commendable -- you set an example that other religious organizations should follow.